Sunday, December 20, 2015

David Cameron is said to be seeking clarity on the law of
police shooting, following a national security council meeting at which police
chiefs demanded greater political and legal backing for police officers required
to carry firearms on duty for the purposes of providing protection to the
public and themselves.

Now I seriously doubt that David Cameron, rash though he
can be at times, has really said those stupid words.

Let us dispense, once and for all, with the completely
mistaken notion that there is or has ever been a police ‘shoot to kill’ policy
in this country .

The phrase ‘Shoot to Kill’ when used in the context of public
order policing contains a host of pejorative connotations, more reminiscent of
the bad old days in Northern Ireland during the deaths occasioned in a major breakdown
of public order which set the Provisional IRA and soldiers of the Parachute
regiment at each other’s throats in the housing projects of Londonderry in
1972, and which came to be known later as ‘Bloody Sunday’.

What we do have is a ‘Shoot to Protect’ policy, although
it has been previously described in 2005 as a ‘Shoot to kill to Protect’
policy.

Every police officer who is authorised to carry a firearm
knows full well that the decision to pull the trigger, an action which may very
well have the possible consequence of ending someone’s life, rests with the
officer and the officer alone. He cannot be ordered to fire by anyone else.

He is authorised to pull the trigger when he forms a reasonable
and genuinely-held belief that opening fire is necessary to protect himself,
another officer or a member of the public whose life is being immediately
threatened. Because the speed of the need to make the decision in many
circumstances is so rapid, officers are enabled to use the defence if later
challenged as to the lawfulness of their actions, that they had ‘an honest and
instinctive’ belief that opening fire was reasonable.

But let us be absolutely clear about the potential
outcomes of pulling the trigger of a modern powerful firearm in the hands of a
trained marksman.

Someone is almost certainly going to die.

So when the officer pulls the trigger, he is doing so,
intending to kill the person at whom his gun is aimed.

Our police do not shoot merely to wound, to disable, to ‘wing’,
they are aiming at a part of the body which if hit by a modern high velocity
ballistic round, will almost certainly engage with a vital organ, with
concomitant fatal consequences.

This is why, when the subsequent investigation of the
shooting is carried out, a major aspect of the enquiry is aimed at determining
the lawfulness of the officer’s actions, because if his actions were not to be
determined to be lawful at the moment he fired, then he would not be able to
avail himself of the defence the law provides.

Public policy demands that we cannot prosecute every
policeman who discharges a firearm as a result of which someone dies, so we
have to be absolutely satisfied that in the vast preponderance of cases, police
officers act lawfully, unless there is a significant body of evidence to prove
differently.

So we have what is called a ‘rebuttable presumption’ of
lawful conduct on the part of an armed police officer.

This is an awesomely high standard of responsibility and
the officers who exercise these powers are selected accordingly and trained
rigorously, so that they can discharge their duties to the highest standard.

Under normal circumstances, these checks and balances
should be sufficient to ensure that we have the fairest system we can devise
for the control and regulation of firearms officers.

However, two issues have now intervened in this
discussion, which are making it far more complex.

The first is the actions of the Independent Police
Complaints Commission in the way in which they are handling the present
investigation into the shooting.

In their own information published on Twitter, the IPCC
state the following;

“...On
Sunday there was evidence to indicate that a potential criminal offence may
have been committed by the officer in his use of lethal force. We therefore
made the decision to begin a criminal homicide investigation.

This is
not a decision we took lightly. Our decision followed careful consideration of
the evidence available and whether that evidence met the legal requirement that
meant a criminal investigation should be carried out.

This
afternoon a firearms officer has been arrested and interviewed under caution.
All the other significant firearms officers have provided detailed statements
as is normal practice.

The
evidence we have at this stage does not mean that the officer definitively
committed a criminal act and nor does it mean he will necessarily be charged
with a criminal offence.

Ultimately
once we have gathered all the evidence and concluded the investigation I will
make the decision whether to formally refer the matter to the Crown Prosecution
Service – if that happens it will be for them to decide whether to bring
charges and what they should be.

The investigation
is only a matter of days old and the evidential picture is continuing to
develop and just as we took the decision that the investigation should be
criminal, further evidence could mean we reconsider that decision.

It may be thought that this is a highly unsatisfactory
state of affairs at this very early stage of events. The use of the phrase ‘criminal
homicide’ investigation is vague, and unhelpful.

Homicide is a generic phrase
designed to cover the loss of life of a person at the hand of another. It can
be a criminal act, but it can also be a non-criminal act, it depends on all the
facts and the circumstances. The overwhelming inference from the IPCC is that
the officer acted unlawfully in the discharge of his weapon, which if committed
maliciously, could possibly lead to a charge of murder. The alternative is that
the firearm was discharged accidentally in the heat of the moment, which could possibly
lead to other different charges being deployed.

The IPCC report refers to a ‘criminal homicide
investigation’. Quite what this means in these circumstances is unclear, just
as is the suggestion that the matter could just as easily be reconsidered if
further evidence is forthcoming.

What it does mean is that a lot of uncertainty is likely
to hang over this case and will not help to clarify the policy issues.

The second area of concern, and one which I lay firmly at
the feet of BBC reporter Laura Keunssberg arises out of the disingenuous use of
the phrase ‘shoot to kill’.

She
first used it in an interview with Jeremy Corbyn on 16th November
2015, when discussing the Paris terrorist spectacle. Mr Corbyn was asked by the
BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg whether he would be happy to order police
or the military to shoot to kill if there was a similar attack on Britain's
streets.

Mr
Corbyn said: "I'm not happy with the shoot-to-kill policy in general - I
think that is quite dangerous and I think can often can be counterproductive.

As a result of his thoughtful and considered answer, the press
and members of his own party rounded on Mr Corbyn accusing him of being soft on
terrorism, which culminated in his being accused of being a terrorist sympathiser
by David Cameron, and threw the potential existence of a ‘shoot to kill’ policy
into the public domain, where it had not previously existed.

Mr
Corbyn was absolutely right and he was merely restating British public policy
when he made his answer. The BBC later were forced to issue a clarification of
the policy.

“...The
UK's police forces do not have a blanket "shoot-to-kill" policy - but
at the same time, police can be legally justified in shooting even if the
attacker ends up dead...”

I
sincerely hope that this deliberately mis-stated nonsense about shoot to kill
policies will now be abandoned, once and for all; that journalists will check
their facts before looking for scandal headlines, and that the IPCC will handle
the investigation into this event with a little more tact and professionalism
than they have recently deployed in similar cases.

Thursday, December 17, 2015

The Tory Party has
just conspired to give their friends in the Banking sector a complete ‘Get out
of Jail card free’ for life.

If we ever had any
doubts that the Tories are the party of the bloated criminal plutocrats in the
financial sector, we only have to look at the wording of an obscure section of
a new banking law that was very quietly pushed through Parliament this week.

They have
routinely failed to investigate any banking crime committed by the Organised
banking mafias, and none of their senior money launderers have gripped the rail
at the Old Bailey.

They have
continued to allow billions of pounds worth of dirty foreign money to flood
into the City of London without requiring any routine ‘Know Your Customer’
checks being undertaken.

Now, the Tories
have very neatly sidelined what should have been a most effective crackdown on fat-cat bank bosses who connive
at reckless criminal tactics within their institutions, enabling them to pad
their profits and increase their already obscenely inflated bonuses.

Labour and Lib Dem peers joined together to voice
their fury after the move which was slipped almost silently into an obscure new
banking law . The change is being moved in the small print of the 60-page Bank of
England Bill and may still be challenged in the House of Lords.

The aim of
the new law was to put the responsibility for proper control of banking systems
and bank employees firmly on the shoulders of bank executives, thus making it
their direct responsibility if later wrong-doing was uncovered in their
institution.

It would
have meant that prosecutors could have had little difficulty in deciding who
was responsible for failing to prevent the crimes taking place.

The
proposed new law said managers should be held to account for all rule-breaking
by their employees - and they would only escape punishment if they proved they
had done all they could to stop it.

You may
recall the background to this new law, which was the evidence of massive criminality
in the banking sector which was given to a Parliamentary Committee, but for
which no employee or executive could be found to be liable for its commission.

As a
result, the Tory Government, under David Cameron and George Osborne determined,
to pass legislation which would remedy that lacuna in the law. There was much
talk of concern, and being seen to be tough on the causes of financial crime.
Cameron and Osborne needed to be seen to be standing tall and talking tough on
City crime at that time, because the impacts of the policies of austerity were
beginning to be felt very hard across the country.

But the
law, passed by MPs in 2013, is now being repealed just weeks before it was due
to come into force in March.

The City
institutions and their weasel-worded PR agencies have been quietly lobbying
Government, saying how unfair it would be if the burden of proof of innocence
was forced on to the shoulders of those accused of the wrong-doing.

There has
been a lot of blather talked about ‘natural justice’, The Bill of Rights,
‘Magna Carta’, and any number of other arguments that well-heeled City lawyers
can be paid even more money to identify.

But none
of it amounts to a row of beans.

The new
law stated that managers should be held to account for all rule-breaking by
their employees - and would only escape punishment if they proved they had done
all they could to stop it.

In other
words, instead of allowing senior bankers to wash their hands of all
responsibility for the wrong-doing carried on by their employees, wrong-doing
which was contributing in no small way to the bottom line of the bank’s
profits, and thereby, to the bonuses of the directors, the law would have
required them to prove what they did to ensure that wrong-doing could not be
carried out.

You might
not think that this was too onerous a requirement, after all, it is inherent in
their role as directors, and is part of the fiduciary duties of care that they
owe the bank and its shareholders as directors, so they would only have been
required to prove what they should otherwise have been doing anyway.

But in
the Alice in Wonderland world of the City of London and its banking class, such
burdens were felt to be unfair to the overpaid Mafiosi who run our banks. It
was argued this was requiring the bankers to prove their own innocence, a
feature as many well-heeled and well-fatted QCs opined was contrary to English
Common law.

Well, not
really, since 1953, anyone found carrying an offensive weapon has been required
to prove that he had it with him for a lawful purpose. But this law was
designed to deal with oiks and yobs and the lower orders without the law, so
no-one gave a toss that they were being required to prove their own innocence.

But when
it comes to bankers and the untouchable protected species, different rules must
be seen to apply.

So, Instead
of bank bosses having to prove they did enough to stop rule-breaking, the regulators
will now have to prove they did not.

That will
shift the 'burden of proof' from bankers themselves to organisations like the
Financial Conduct Authority, making it more expensive to pursue high-salaried
bosses.

"People are no longer talking about the
banks so the Tories think they can go easy on them’ she said.

"The
government claims the rule will make it hard to hire good people. They've
obviously been in conversation with the banks to come up with statements like
that."

Of
course, why didn’t we think of that ourselves?. ‘Good people’ ie, previously
experienced criminal bankers will know about the new law so may be wary of
putting themselves in harm’s way.

Of
course, keeping dodgy bankers out of the top jobs might be thought to be a very
good thing, but again, not in the world of the City and Canary Wharf!

The
Tories have clearly quickly forgotten their much vaunted promises about going
after the guilty men and making sure that the City of London is a clean place
to do business in.

Susan
Kramer again;

"It
is as if they have already forgotten about the 2008 crash, Libor fixing or any
one of the other scandals that cost the taxpayer billions.

"Senior
managers in our banks should not be allowed to wash their hands of failings.
Ignorance is not an excuse when our economy and British livelihoods are on the
line."

This is
the mendacioius Tory politicians all over, and Baroness Kramer is right, but
sadly, her views will not carry much weight in the City or in the Carlton Club.
The Tories know on which side of their bread to spread the butter, and that
will only come from their friends in the financial sector who want to be able
to bring as much dirty money into this country as possible, but without having
to demonstrate any personal responsibility for its handling.

This is
why I say that we cannot trust this Government to tell us the truth on their
dealing with banking crime. They are making too much money out of its
commission. Oh they will huff and puff when it is necessary so to do, and they
will say all the right things to get their lickspittle friends in the media to
write them good headlines when they need them, but then, when the hue and cry
has died down, they will quietly renege on their public agreements and simply
not carry out their agreed promises.

This is
why I say they are complicit in the commission of banking crime. They know only
too well what their shiny suited friends in the City are capable of doing, and
by repealing important aspects of much trumpeted laws, even before they have
been given a chance to work in practice, they are conspiring with the City
Mafias to commit even more crime.

The usual
Civil Service bromides have been trotted out to justify this appalling breach
of faith.

A
Treasury spokesman said: "The government has taken concerted action to
improve conduct across the banking sector and deal with the abuses and
unacceptable behaviour of the past.

"We've
introduced the toughest rules on bankers’ pay of any major financial centre,
and hardwired responsibility and accountability into the financial system, with
those senior managers responsible for bringing down banks facing up to seven
years in prison.

(Well,
these rules have already been watered down to such an extent that they are
illusory and will never be promulgated).

"We
are extending the Senior Managers & Certification regime so that tough
standards of personal responsibility and accountability apply beyond banking
and across the entire financial services industry.

"This
will ensure that all financial services firms in Britain operate to the highest
standards."

And if
you believe this pile of 24 carat tosh, you will believe anything!

George
Osborne and David Cameron have just sent their banking friends the clearest
message that it is ‘business as usual’.

So fill
your boots boys, because this government ain’t gonna come after you!

Friday, December 11, 2015

The biased BBC are up to their usual tricks again, smearing Jeremy
Corbyn.

last night's news reported the conviction of 4 asian men for
fraud on pensioners.

Great play was made on the completely unmerited and
unsubstantiated story that the money obtained was going to be used for
supporting DAESH terrorist aims, although there was a subsequent
admission that no charges had been brought or sought on any issues
involving terrorist activities.

At the end of the story, one defendant
was alleged to be associated with Jeremy Corbyn, but no other detailed
explanation was offered. This totally unjustified smear turned out to be
that JC had written an MP's letter for the man (a constituent),
confirming his residence in JC';s constituency, when the man was
applying for bail. MPs do such things time and time again and there is
nothing wrong in such an action, but theBBC sought to use the
association as a terrorist-related smear on JC.

This morning on the Today programme, not exactly known for its
fearlessly honest and fair reporting of Corbyn issues, Oxford educated
Labour MP Emma Reynolds pontificated on the need for JC to dissasociate
himself from a 'Stop the War' Coalition meeting tonight.

This
lightweight MP and ex-policy wonk, who has only been in the HoC since
2010, and who has never held down a proper job of real work in her life,
used a lot of old smears about individual members of the Coalition to
suggest that these are the sort of people with whom Labour should not be
associated, and therefore, by default, JC should not attend the
meeting.

Ms Reynolds was one of those Labour MPs who voted for the
bombing campaign in Syria, against the will of the Party, so her
opposition to the Stop the War event is more about her personal
opposition to JC as much as anything else.

JC has been openly
associated with the Stop the War Coalition since 2001, and only resigned
ffrom an office there when he became Leader of the Labour Party. His
alignment therefore is not exactly a secret. Quite what contribution Ms
Reynolds' spiteful involvement made on the programme was very
questionable, but it gave the BBC yet another opportunity to try and
smear JC.

Tuesday, December 08, 2015

I'm sure I cannot be alone in thinking that the standard of reportage on the BBC is plumbing new depths of bias and crass insensitivity.During the recent days, the reporting of Labour Party issues and particularly where they concern Jeremy Corbyn or John McDonnell has brought out the worst in the reporters, and in particular, Emily Maitliss, and Laura Kuenssberg of Newsnight, followed closely by Allegra Stratton.The floods in Cumberland have brought out new lows in the maner of questioning and reporting.One poor man on last night's news who had been completely flooded out for the second time was being questioned about his experience.The reporter was leaning against the door frame in a casual manner, asking 'How do you feel'?He could see the poor guy he was questioning was distraught, turning away to hide his tears.The whole episode was so awful and insensitive, had I been the poor victim I would have punched the reporter on the nose and asked him how he felt.The BBC clearly received a lot of critical calls, because by News at Ten, the piece had been taken down.Another reporter was asking the occupants of a house who were having to stay upstairs because their ground floor was completely flooded.'What's it like down there?' he asked.Again, you could see the obvious distress on the faces of the occupants. I wonder how the reporter would have felt if the answer had been 'soaking wet you fucking idiot'! That's the problem, ordinary people are too polite when confronted with a camera and a microphone.Get a grip BBC and smarten up your act. People's misfortune is not a scoop opportunity for your reptiles!

Tristram Hunt demonstrates the real reason why Labour lost the last election.

'Labour must turn back to its moral mission of tackling inequality'
says Tristram Hunt MP. He calls for a discussion on social inequality.

This is precisely why Labour was beaten in the last election, too many
people who might otherwise have voted Labour, had become sick, tired and
disillusioned by the procession of political elites within the upper
echelons of the party talking utter bollocks and using
the language of socio-liberal wabble-babble, instead of saying what
they mean! You couldn,t get a straight answer out of any of them. When
it came to discussing policy, I don't know who was worse, Cameron or
Miliband.

This
self-opinionated academic sets his cap at opposing the man who was
elected overwhelmingly to lead the Labour Party, and by whose words and
actions, is attracting thousands of former disenfranchised, old but
loyal, Labour voters back to the party and to the real fight for social
justice.

You may not agree with me, but I doubt if Dr Hunt, on
his own would have encouraged the Fire Brigades Union to re-align with
the Labour Party again. Labour lost its political soul and its electoral
strength, among other reasons, because many thousands of ordinary
honourable Labour voters, decent men and women, nurses, teachers, former
coal miners, ex-steel workers, care workers, etc, found themselves
alienated by the tosh spouted by the policy wonk ellite that had risen
to the top of the party under Blair and subsequently under Miliband.
They were sick of the fact that when challenged about their commitment
to social justice and commitment to Labour values, these tory-lite
spokespersons, many of whom had never held down a proper job of work in
their life, but had risen inexorably to the top of the New Labour elite,
started to spout the weasel words of the need to work within the
'discipline of the market', or the Peter Mandelson oily outpourings,
instead of standing up for what they believed in their hearts and their
souls.

Jeremy Corbyn is returning the party to its strong
working-class centre. He doesn't just talk the language of social
justice and he doesn't talk about moral missions, without demonstrating
exactly what he means in his actions as well as his words.

This
is why men like Dr Hunt can not forgive him, because the man with the
experience of representing working people has finally got the job that
Hunt would have liked, except he didn't have the guts to stand for it.

We don't need any more fucking discussions on social inequality
Tristram, we need action, and we need to be sticking it to the tories
and their austerity programme. Austerity is another word desiged to
mean the complete eradication of the Welfare State, let us have no
illusions, and just talking about the class gap and inequality over
Sherry and tapas in the college senior common room, ain't gonna cut it,
professor!

About Me

Having spent my career dealing with financial crime, both as a Met detective and as a legal consultant, I now spend my time working with financial institutions advising them on the best way to provide compliance with the plethora of conflicting regulations and laws designed to prevent and forestall money laundering - whatever that might be! This blog aims to provide a venue for discussion on these and aligned issues, because most of these subjects are so surrounded by disinformation and downright intellectual dishonesty, an alternative mouthpiece is predicated. Please share your views with what is published here from time to time!